Re: Q

There are really two issues being dealt with here and I want to suggest
separating them. First, there is what did/do proponents of Q calim for it?
Second, is it a valid hypothesis? Sterling is certainly right that I have not
read all the recent literature in Q stuides, but that's related to the
second issue. Whatever refinements have been added to the hypothesis of
late, or whatever agreements may have been reached, I remain unconvinced
that the hypothesis has successfully answered (not that many haven't tried)
challenges to fundamental problems, like Luke's omissionof a large chunk of Mark
or why Matthew and Luke are using the same text but coming up with different
versions of the same events. I know the latter leads to additional
hypotheses about multiple vesions of Q but just means now that proponets of that
additional hypothesis have even more conjectures to defend. Having done what
these proponents felt necessary to defend their view(s), they have gone on to
build on top of the basic hypotheis additional theories. A good knolwedge of
these additional theories is not required to make a judgment about the
validity of the basic hypothesis, so if I am unaware of later refinements,
it is by choice and would not influence my view of Q. Consider another
area: verbal aspect. If you've read the work of Porter and others who
have affirmed and/or modified to some degree his work, you either accept the
basic premise or you don't. If you don't find the argument convincing,
then later refinements of the theory are probably not going to make any
difference, are they? The same could be said about the notion of
semantic domains for translation. If you don't accept Louw and Nida's
basic theoretical approach, then no later refinements of their lexicon is
going to convince you, most likely. So I think a distinction needs to be
made between being conversant with current scholarship on Q by those who
accept it and one's view of the underlying hypothesis, which I reject.
Ken Litwak
Richmond, CA